We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Prohibition Granted in face of Invalidity Allegations

The Court granted a prohibition order preventing Pharmascience from coming to market until the expiry of the patent. The Court found the NOA to be sufficient, however, found all of Pharmascience’s allegations as to invalidity unjustified.

The Court held that the patent claimed an invention and not just known properties of a substance. The Court considered the promise of the patent and held that Pharmascience had “failed to demonstrate ‘that the invention will not work, either in the sense that it will not operate at all or, more broadly, that it will not do what the specification promises that it will do’”. The patent was found to sufficiently describe the invention and how to put it into operation. Finally, the patent was found to not be obvious. Thus, the application for prohibition was granted.

Compare jurisdictions:Life Sciences: Product Regulation and Liability

“As in house counsel for a medium sized NZ group of companies, I find the newsfeeds very useful as they keep me up-to-date with the latest legal info in areas I have subscribed for. The quality is very good and I would not hesitate to recommend to colleagues.”